19150 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

6 In this context, we are referring to NDEP’s 

program for issuing pre-construction permits for all 

new sources and modifications other than those for 

which part C (i.e., PSD) or part D (i.e., 

Nonattainment NSR) of title I of the CAA apply and 

for issuing operating permits under title I of the 

CAA (not title V). 

179 and 40 CFR 52.31 because the State 

of Nevada has an approved stationary 

source permitting program in the 

applicable SIP and is not required under 

the Clean Air Act to submit its updated 

stationary source permitting program to 

EPA for approval.6

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely proposes 

to approve or disapprove new or 

amended state rules, or to approve or 

disapprove requests for rescission of 

previously-approved state rules, as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve or disapprove preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve or disapprove new 

or amended state rules, or to approve or 

disapprove requests for rescission of 

previously-approved state rules, 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E7–7285 Filed 4–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0034; FRL–8299–8] 

RIN 2060–AM85 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and 

Steel Foundries 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for iron and steel foundries. The 

proposed amendments add alternative 

compliance options for cupolas at 

existing foundries and clarify several 

provisions to increase operational 

flexibility and improve understanding 

of the final rule requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 17, 2007, unless a public 

hearing is requested by April 27, 2007. 

If a hearing is requested on the proposed 

rule, written comments must be 

received by June 1, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2002–0034, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron 

and Steel Foundries Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–

0034. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19151 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and 

Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (D243–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541–

5289; fax number: (919) 541–3207; email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this proposed 

action include: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 331511 Iron foundries. Iron and steel plants. Automotive and large equipment manufacturers. 

331512 Steel investment foundries. 

331513 Steel foundries (except investment). 

Federal government .................................. ........................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government .................... ........................ Not affected. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.7682 of subpart EEEEE 

(NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries). 

If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permit authority for the entity or your 

EPA regional representative as listed in 

40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

confidential business information (CBI) 

to EPA through www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket 

ID EPA-HQ-OAR–2002–0034. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this proposed action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning the 

proposed amendments by April 27, 

2007, we will hold a public hearing on 

May 2, 2007. If you are interested in 

attending the public hearing, contact 

Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541–7966 to 

verify that a hearing will be held. 

E. How is this document organized? 

The supplementary information in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

E. How is this document organized? 

II. Background Information 

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Emissions Limitations 

B. Work Practice Standards 

C. Operation and Maintenance 

Requirements 

D. Compliance With Alternative Emissions 

Limits 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

G. Definitions 

H. Applicability 

I. Editorial Corrections 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19152 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

II. Background Information 

The national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEEEE) establish emissions 

limitations and work practice 

requirements for the control of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

foundry operations. The NESHAP 

implement section 112(d) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) by requiring all iron and 

steel foundries that are major sources of 

HAP to meet standards reflecting 

application of the maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT). The 

compliance date for most of the subpart 

EEEEE requirements is April 23, 2007. 

After publication of the NESHAP (69 

FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the American 

Foundry Society, the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, and the 

Steel Founders’ Society of America filed 

petitions for reconsideration of the final 

rule. The American Foundry Society 

and the Steel Founders’ Society of 

America also filed petitions for review 

of the final rule (Steel Founders’ Society 

of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04–1190, 

DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society 

v. U.S. EPA, No. 04–1191, DC Cir.). The 

concerns raised by the petitioners 

regarding the work practice standards 

for scrap management have been 

resolved by rule amendments issued on 

May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel 

Founders’ Society of America petitioned 

the court for voluntary dismissal of their 

petition for review on March 23, 2006, 

and the court granted that petition on 

May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge 

to the NESHAP remaining before the 

court is the American Foundry Society 

petition for review, No. 04–1191. This 

proposed rule addresses the need for 

alternative emissions limits for cupolas 

at existing foundries and clarification of 

other rule requirements. EPA anticipates 

that these proposed amendments will 

resolve the remaining issues raised by 

the petitioners. 

These amendments are set out in 

Attachment A to a settlement agreement 

between EPA and the petitioners that 

became final on March 9, 2007. In 

accordance with section 113(g) of the 

CAA, EPA published a notice of the 

proposed settlement agreement (72 FR 

1986, January 17, 2007) and provided a 

30-day comment period which ended on 

February 16, 2007. The settlement 

agreement requires that the EPA 

Administrator sign proposed 

amendments no later than April 9, 2007. 

In addition, since publication of the 

final rule, we have identified a few 

minor editorial errors requiring 

correction. Rather than publish a 

separate notice of corrections, we are 

including those changes along with the 

proposed amendments. 

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Emissions Limitations 

1. New Compliance Options for Cupola 

Metal Melting Furnaces 

Section 63.7690(a)(2) of the NESHAP 

establishes HAP emissions limits for 

cupola metal melting furnaces at 

existing iron and steel foundries. The 

owner or operator may elect to comply 

with a limit of 0.006 grains per dry 

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) of 

particulate matter (PM) or 0.0005 gr/dscf 

of total metal HAP. The PM emissions 

limits for cupolas were based on an 

evaluation of the average performance 

achieved by the top 12 percent of the 

cupola emissions sources (i.e., the 

‘‘MACT floor’’). Because baghouses (the 

technology on which the MACT floor 

performance was based) are generally 

designed to meet a specified outlet 

concentration limit and because EPA 

Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) 

directly determines concentration, a 

concentration-based emissions limit was 

selected for inclusion in the rule. The 

alternative concentration-based 

emissions limit expressed as total metal 

HAP provided equivalent metal HAP 

emissions reductions as the MACT floor 

PM emissions limit. We documented the 

determination of these emissions limits 

in a memorandum titled, 

‘‘Determination of the MACT Floor 

Metal HAP Emission Limits for Iron and 

Steel Foundries’’, which is included in 

the docket for the final rule (Docket Item 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2002–0034–0239). 

As part of our discussions with the 

petitioners on technical issues, we 

recognized the need for an equivalent 

mass-based emissions limit for cupola 

melting furnaces to allow the use of 

control technologies that are designed 

on a mass removal basis rather than an 

outlet concentration basis. We reviewed 

the data previously identified for the top 

12 percent of cupola emissions sources 

as well as the 6th percentile unit on 

which the promulgated emissions limit 

was based. These data indicate that the 

equivalent mass PM emissions rate for 

a baghouse operating at the MACT floor 

emissions limit for cupolas at existing 

sources (0.006 gr/dscf) is 0.10 pound per 

ton (lb/ton) of metal charged. In terms 

of total metal HAP, the MACTequivalent mass emissions rate for 

cupolas at existing sources is 0.008 lb/ 

ton. We documented the determination 

of these mass-based emissions limits in 

a memorandum titled, ‘‘Determination 

of a MACT Floor Equivalent Emission 

Limit for Cupola Melting Furnaces,’’

which is included in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Item EPA–HQ–

OAR–2002–0034–0223). Therefore, we 

are proposing to amend the emissions 

limits in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(2) for 

cupolas at existing sources to add 

alternative limits of 0.10 lb/ton of PM or 

0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP. 

2. Fugitive Emissions Opacity Limit 

Some of the petitioners requested that 

we revise the opacity limit for fugitive 

emissions in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7) to 

clarify that the limit does not apply to 

fugitive emissions that are unrelated to 

emissions sources subject to the 

NESHAP. According to the petitioners, 

the rule could be interpreted to apply to 

fugitive emissions from foundry-related 

operations not subject to the rule or 

operations in other source categories 

that may be co-located in foundries. 

Some foundries are co-located with 

other manufacturing processes that are 

housed in separate buildings. We did 

not intend to set emissions limitations 

for these co-located operations. 

Therefore, we are clarifying that the 

opacity emissions limitations apply 

only to buildings that house iron and 

steel foundry emissions sources. If 

nonfoundry operations are housed in 

the same building as the foundry 

operations, the foundry must comply 

with the opacity limits for that building. 

3. Triethylamine Emissions Limit 

In response to the petitioners’

suggestion, we are proposing to clarify 

the language of the emissions limit for 

triethylamine (TEA) in § 63.7690(a)(11) 

by replacing the reference to test 

conditions (‘‘as determined when 

scrubbing with fresh acid solution’’) 

with the phrase ‘‘according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(g)’’ since § 63.7732(g) contains 

the requirement to conduct the test 

when scrubbing with fresh acid 

solution. 

Although the existing NESHAP 

primarily address the control of HAP 

metals, there are potential opportunities 

for foundries to reduce emissions of 

other HAP such as TEA through the use 

of low-HAP binders and other pollution 

prevention (P2) techniques. Current 

information indicates that these P2 

methods show promise, but they are not 

appropriate for all foundries or casting 

methods. And, in some cases, it can be 

quite costly for the foundry to 

incorporate P2 methods into their 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19153 

overall process. EPA encourages 

foundries to explore the various P2 

options available and use them when 

appropriate and cost-effective to further 

reduce their HAP footprint. 

B. Work Practice Standards 

1. Capture and Collection Systems 

Section 63.7690(b)(1) of the NESHAP 

requires the owner or operator of an iron 

or steel foundry to install, operate, and 

maintain a capture and collection 

system for all emissions sources subject 

to a limit or standard for volatile organic 

hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) or 

TEA in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(8) through 

(11). One petitioner was concerned that 

this provision could be construed to 

require capture and collection systems 

for electric arc furnaces and electric 

induction furnaces, even though these 

furnaces are not directly subject to a 

VOHAP limit. According to the 

petitioner, the scrap certification and 

inspection/selection requirements in 40 

CFR 63.7700 could be understood as 

work practice standards to limit 

organics from entering electric arc 

furnaces and electric induction 

furnaces. It could be inferred that a 

‘‘standard’’ limiting VOHAP does exist 

for these furnaces and therefore, a 

capture and collection system is 

required. A similar concern exists for 

foundries that decide to meet the work 

practice requirement in 40 CFR 

63.7700(e) instead of the VOHAP 

emissions limit in 40 CFR 7690(a)(9). 

The petitioner requests that EPA 

confirm that the scrap certification and 

inspection/selection requirements are 

not considered VOHAP work practice 

standards which would necessitate a 

capture and collection system. 

It is our intent that the requirements 

for capture and collection systems apply 

to emissions sources subject to an 

emissions limit but not to an emissions 

source subject to work practice 

standards. A capture and control system 

that routes emissions to an add-on 

control device is not needed because the 

work practice acts to reduce or prevent 

the release of emissions. In response to 

the petitioner’s concerns, we are 

proposing to clarify the requirement in 

§ 63.7690(b)(1) by deleting the reference 

to ‘‘standard’’. 

2. Scrap Management 

Section 63.7700(a) of the NESHAP 

establishes work practice standards to 

minimize the organics and HAP metals 

in charge materials. The owner or 

operator must comply with certification 

requirements in § 63.7700(b) or operate 

according to a scrap selection and 

inspection plan required in § 63.7700(c). 

One commenter requested that the work 

practice standards specify that the 

requirements for the certification and 

the written plan specify ‘‘chlorinated’’

plastics. Plastics were included in the 

list of undesirable scrap material 

primarily because certain types of 

plastics, such as polyvinyl chloride, 

could lead to the formation of dioxins. 

We did not intend to make certain metal 

components, such as Quiet Steel(), 

that contain some plastics that cannot 

be removed from the scrap unrecyclable. 

Recycling these materials in foundries is 

environmentally preferable to 

landfilling these materials. Therefore, to 

clarify our intent, we now specify that 

it is ‘‘chlorinated’’ plastics that are to be 

removed from the scrap material. 

The petitioner also objected to the 

requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(c)(2) for 

the owner or operator to obtain and 

maintain onsite a copy of the 

procedures used by the scrap supplier 

for either removing accessible mercury 

switches or for purchasing automobile 

bodies that have had the switches 

removed. According to the petitioner, it 

is difficult for some plants to obtain 

such written procedures from scrap 

suppliers. In this case, the plant should 

be able to document their attempts to 

obtain a copy of the procedures. The 

proposed amendments include an 

alternative procedure that allows the 

plant to document their attempts to 

obtain a copy of the procedures from the 

scrap suppliers servicing their area. We 

note, however, that under 40 CFR 

63.7700(c)(2) the materials acquisition 

program must specify that the scrap 

supplier remove accessible mercury 

switches from the trunks and hoods of 

any automotive bodies contained in the 

scrap in addition to accessible lead 

components such as batteries and wheel 

weights. It is incumbent on the foundry 

owner or operator to communicate these 

specifications to their scrap suppliers. 

3. Scrap Preheaters 

Section 63.7700(e) of the rule 

establishes requirements for scrap 

preheaters at an existing iron and steel 

foundry. The owner or operator must 

install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired 

preheater according to 40 CFR 

63.7700(e)(1) or charge only certain 

materials according to 40 CFR 

63.7700(e)(2). One petitioner was 

concerned that the language in 40 CFR 

63.7700(e)(1) could be interpreted to 

require foundries to install gas-fired 

preheaters, even when not necessary for 

foundry operations. It was not our intent 

to mandate installation of preheaters, 

but rather to establish requirements for 

those existing facilities that use scrap 

preheaters in lieu of selecting the option 

in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2). Therefore, we 

are proposing to clarify § 63.7700(e)(1) 

by deleting the word ‘‘install’’. Instead, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to operate and maintain a gas-fired 

preheater where the flame directly 

contacts the scrap charged. 

C. Operation and Maintenance 

Requirements 

One petitioner suggested that the 

requirement in 40 CFR 63.7710(b) for an 

operation and maintenance plan would 

be better understood if it clarified the 

emissions sources subject to the plan 

requirements. The proposed 

amendments clarify that the 

requirement applies to each capture and 

collection system and control device for 

an emissions source subject to a PM, 

metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions 

limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). 

D. Compliance With Alternative 

Emissions Limits 

The existing NESHAP establishes PM 

emissions limits and alternative 

emissions limits expressed in total 

metal HAP for cupolas and other 

foundry processes. In response to 

requests by the petitioners, we are 

proposing amendments to 40 CFR 

63.7732, 40 CFR 63.7690, and 40 CFR 

63.7734 to clarify our original intent to 

allow foundries to demonstrate 

compliance with any of the applicable 

alternative emissions limitations that 

are provided for a specific emissions 

source. When multiple alternative 

emissions limitations are provided for a 

specific emissions source, iron and steel 

foundries can demonstrate initial 

compliance with any of the alternative 

limits; they are not required to comply 

with all of the alternative emissions 

limits at any one time. We are also 

clarifying a facility’s ability to change 

their selected compliance alternative 

and the procedures needed to effect that 

change. However, regarding continuous 

compliance, the facility is expected to 

continuously comply with the 

alternative emissions limit that was 

selected as their compliance option as 

demonstrated in their most recent 

performance test. The facility may 

choose to alter their selected alternative 

but must continue to comply with the 

previously selected alternative until 

they successfully demonstrate 

compliance with the new alternative 

emissions limitation. 

We are also proposing requirements 

for determining initial compliance for 

cupola melting furnaces at existing iron 

and steel foundries that are subject to 

the new mass rate emissions limit. 

Revisions to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) 

would include new equations for 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19154 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

determining PM or total metal HAP 

emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton 

format. Other amendments to 40 CFR 

63.7732(b) and (c) would clarify test 

method and emissions source sampling 

requirements. 

1. Single Performance Test for Control 

Devices Serving Multiple Units 

Section 63.7734 of the NESHAP 

requires iron and steel foundries to 

demonstrate initial compliance with PM 

emissions limits by conducting a 

performance test for each process unit 

according to the procedures in 40 CFR 

63.7732. One petitioner pointed out that 

a common emissions control system 

may serve two similar or identical 

cupolas or serve multiple furnaces or 

process units. According to the 

petitioner, a requirement for separate 

tests of the control device while the 

emissions sources are operating is 

redundant and imposes unnecessary 

costs because the control device should 

perform the same on each identical 

furnace. 

We acknowledge that there are certain 

control device configurations that we 

cannot fully address within the rule 

requirements. These situations are best 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

Therefore, we are proposing to resolve 

the petitioner’s concern by adding a 

new provision to the performance test 

requirements. The proposed amendment 

requires foundries to submit a sitespecific test plan for the situation 

described by the petitioner or other 

situations not expressly considered in 

40 CFR 63.7734. The site-specific test 

plan, which is subject to approval by the 

Administrator, would explain the 

procedures that would be followed 

during the test, such as operation of the 

unit or units at the maximum operating 

condition of the control system. The 

Administrator or delegated authority 

would determine on a case-by-case basis 

if one representative furnace/control 

device configuration may be tested. 

2. Sampling Procedure for Electric Arc 

Furnaces, Electric Induction Furnaces, 

and Scrap Preheaters 

One petitioner objected to the 

sampling instructions in 40 CFR 

63.7732(c)(4) and (5) for electric arc and 

electric induction metal melting 

furnaces (when metal is being melted) 

and scrap preheaters (when scrap is 

being preheated) as inappropriate 

restrictions on performance testing. 

Many operations that occur during the 

furnace melting process are considered 

part of typical operation. Scrap 

preheaters operate on a batch basis and 

do not heat scrap for extended periods 

of time. It is not practical to start and 

stop tests for these emissions sources 

over the course of a heat until the 

required sampling time is accumulated. 

According to the petitioner, testing 

during all phases of operations is 

consistent with the requirement in 

§ 63.6(f)(2)(iii)(A) of the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which state that a 

performance test must be conducted 

under representative operating 

conditions of the source. 

In response to these concerns, we are 

proposing to clarify that the initial 

compliance demonstrations for electric 

arc metal melting furnaces, electric 

induction metal melting furnaces, and 

scrap preheaters should be conducted 

under normal production conditions. 

The emissions limitations derived for 

these sources used data for various 

production cycles, including charging, 

melting, back-charging, and tapping. As 

the MACT floor emissions limitation 

was based on various production cycles 

and because significant PM and metal 

HAP emissions can occur from these 

other production cycles, the 

promulgated requirement to test only 

during melting is being amended to 

more accurately align the testing 

requirements to the testing procedures 

used as the basis of the MACT 

emissions limitation. The proposed 

amendments require sampling during 

normal operating conditions, which 

may include charging, melting, alloying, 

refining, slagging, and tapping (for a 

furnace) or charging, heating, and 

discharging (for a scrap preheater). 

3. Minimum Sampling Volume for Total 

Metal HAP 

One petitioner pointed out that it was 

unnecessary to specify the minimum 

sample volume for test runs by EPA 

Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) 

because the method already includes a 

requirement. The proposed amendments 

remove this requirement from 40 CFR 

63.7732(c)(2). 

4. Opacity Test 

Section 63.7732(d) of the existing rule 

establishes the requirements for opacity 

tests. The proposed amendments 

instruct the certified observer how to 

take opacity readings by Method 9 (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A) for a building 

that has many openings. This issue was 

not addressed in the NESHAP. Under 

the proposed amendments, the observer 

would be allowed to take readings from 

a limited number of openings or vents 

that appear to have the highest opacities 

instead of making observations for each 

opening or vent from the building or 

structure. Alternatively, a single 

observation for the entire building 

would be allowed if the fugitive release 

points afford such an observation. 

Section 63.7732(d)(2) requires that 

opacity observations to demonstrate 

compliance with the fugitive emissions 

opacity standards in 40 CFR 

63.7690(a)(7) overlap with the PM 

performance tests. One petitioner stated 

that it is not feasible for opacity 

observations to overlap with PM 

performance tests in all cases because 

subsequent tests are required every 6 

months for opacity and every 5 years for 

PM emissions. The petitioner raised the 

concern that the rule could have been 

read to require a PM performance test 

during each opacity test; however, this 

was not our intent. In response to the 

petitioner’s concern, we are proposing 

amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(2) to 

clarify that opacity tests are to be 

conducted during PM performance tests, 

but that PM performance tests are not 

required to occur during the semiannual 

opacity tests. 

5. Alternative Test Method 

Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the NESHAP 

requires the use of EPA Method 18 (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine 

the triethylamine (TEA) concentration 

of gases from the TEA cold box mold or 

core making line. One petitioner 

requested EPA to allow an alternative to 

Method 18 because the detection limit 

of Method 18, which is approximately 1 

part per million by volume (ppmv), is 

not significantly less than the emissions 

limit. The petitioner believed this could 

make compliance determinations 

problematic. According to the 

petitioner, operators will need to use the 

alternative silica gel adsorption tube 

sampling technique in section 8.2.4 of 

Method 18 to achieve lower detection 

limits, but that not all facilities will 

know to specify the alternative sampling 

techniques to their testing contractors. 

The commenter stated that the 

alternative methodology is equivalent to 

National Institute of Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 

2010 and requested that the rule allow 

the NIOSH method as an acceptable 

alternative. If the rule specifies the 

NIOSH method as an alternative, 

facilities can ensure that proper 

sampling techniques are used to achieve 

the low detection limits. 

We agree that NIOSH Method 2010 is 

an acceptable and equivalent sampling 

alternative to EPA Method 18. However, 

the NIOSH method does not include 

quality assurance performance 

requirements. Therefore, we are 

proposing NIOSH Method 2010, 

‘‘Amines, Aliphatic’’ (incorporated by 

reference-see § 63.14) as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 18 (40 CFR 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19155 

part 60, appendix A) provided the 

performance requirements outlined in 

section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are 

satisfied. Method 2010 is included in 

the NIOSH Manual of Analytical 

Methods (4th edition, NIOSH 

Publication 94–113, August 1994). The 

manual is available from the 

Government Printing Office and the 

National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS), NTIS publication no. 

PB95154191. The NIOSH method may 

also be found on the NIOSH Web site at 

the following address: www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/nmam/method-4000.html. 

6. Procedures for Establishing Operating 

Limits 

One petitioner pointed out that the 

procedures for establishing control 

device operating limits in 40 CFR 

63.7733(b) through (d) should not 

instruct operators to compute and 

record the 3-hour average parameter 

value because some sampling durations 

are based on sampling volumes which 

do not correspond to a 3-hour period. 

This requirement could be 

misinterpreted to require performance 

testing over a period of at least 3 hours. 

We originally intended that the 

performance test consist of three 1-hour 

tests runs, and that the control device 

parameter operating limit would be 

based on the average of these data. 

However, there are instances where the 

duration of the sampling runs may be 

greater than 1 hour. The proposed 

amendments delete the reference to the 

3-hour average from the test procedures 

and clarify that the operator is to 

compute and record the average 

operating parameter value for each valid 

sampling run in which the applicable 

limit is met. 

7. Repeat Performance Tests 

One petitioner requested EPA to 

clarify that demonstrating compliance 

by one method does not preclude a 

demonstration of compliance using an 

alternative method at a later date. EPA 

agrees that a plant may elect to 

demonstrate compliance with an 

alternative emissions limit during the 

repeat performance tests conducted at 

least every 5 years. Furthermore, the 

plant may elect to conduct a 

performance test earlier than 5 years in 

order to change an operating limit or to 

demonstrate compliance with a different 

alternative emissions limit. The 

proposed amendments clarify these 

testing options in amendments to 40 

CFR 63.7731(a). A test conducted for the 

purpose of changing operating limits is 

subject to notification requirements in 

40 CFR 63.7750(d). 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

1. Baghouse Monitoring Requirements 

Section 63.7740(b) of the existing 

NESHAP requires a bag leak detection 

system for each negative pressure 

baghouse and for each positive pressure 

baghouse equipped with a stack where 

the baghouse is applied to meet any PM 

or total metal HAP emissions limitation 

in subpart EEEEE. This provision also 

requires inspection of each baghouse 

according to the requirements in 40 CFR 

63.7740(b) (1) through (8). One 

petitioner states that the final rule 

appears to omit any monitoring 

requirements for positive pressure 

baghouses not equipped with a stack. 

Although these units are not required to 

install a bag leak detection system, we 

intended to require the visual 

inspection of these positive pressure 

baghouses to ensure their proper 

performance. Therefore, we are 

proposing amendments to clarify our 

original intent to require monitoring 

inspections of positive baghouses that 

are not equipped with a stack. The 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

63.7740(b) clarify the text to ensure that 

the requirements in this paragraph for 

installing and using a bag leak detection 

system apply only to negative pressure 

baghouses and positive pressure 

baghouses equipped with a stack. The 

inspection requirements would be 

separated and placed in a new 

paragraph (c) and clarified to state that 

the inspection requirements apply to 

each baghouse regardless of type. The 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

63.7740 also renumber the paragraphs 

which follow new paragraph (c). Similar 

clarifications would be made to the 

requirements for demonstrating 

continuous compliance in 40 CFR 

63.7743(c). 

2. Demonstration of Initial Compliance 

With Bag Leak Detection System 

Operation and Maintenance 

Requirements 

Section 63.7736(c) of the existing 

NESHAP instructs the owner or operator 

how to demonstrate initial compliance 

with the requirements for bag leak 

detection systems. Under 40 CFR 

63.7736(c)(1), the owner or operator 

must submit the bag leak detection 

system monitoring plan to the 

Administrator for approval according to 

the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7710(b). 

One petitioner requested EPA to clarify 

this provision because the requirement 

could be interpreted to necessitate 

submission of the monitoring plan 

independent of the operation and 

maintenance plan. Our intent in the 

existing rule was to include the bag leak 

detection system information in the 

operation and maintenance plan to 

streamline the approval process and 

avoid the administrative costs 

associated with a separate submission. 

In addition, having one integrated plan 

provides a centralized reference tool for 

control device operation and 

maintenance requirements. The 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

63.7736(c)(1) clarify the requirement to 

submit the bag leak system monitoring 

information to the Administrator within 

the written operation and maintenance 

plan for approval according to the 

requirements in § 63.7710(b). 

3. Installation, Operation, and 

Maintenance Requirements for Monitors 

One petitioner requested that EPA 

revise the requirements for operation 

and maintenance of continuous 

parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) 

to more clearly describe the inspection 

requirements. Under the operation and 

maintenance requirements for flow 

measurement devices in 40 CFR 

63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator 

must perform monthly inspections of all 

flow sensor components for integrity, all 

electrical connections for continuity, 

and all mechanical connections for 

leakage. The proposed amendments 

change this provision to require a 

monthly visual inspection of all 

components, including all electrical and 

mechanical connections for proper 

functioning. The same changes would 

be made to the monthly inspection 

requirements for other types of 

monitoring devices in 

§§ 63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi), (c)(2)(iv), 

(d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv). 

We are proposing these changes in 

response to the concerns expressed by 

one petitioner who explained that the 

changes are needed to ensure the ability 

of a facility to comply on a monthly 

basis. According to the petitioner, the 

ability of a facility to specifically 

inspect for ‘‘integrity’’, ‘‘continuity’’ and 

‘‘leakage’’ depends on where the 

components are located, but a facility 

would be able to readily determine 

proper functioning. One the facility 

determines that a connection is not 

working properly, additional steps can 

be taken to address the problem, which 

may include removing a barrier to allow 

access to the connection. In addition, 

testing of the electrical connections for 

continuity is not necessary when 

indicators are routinely used to show 

whether the current is flowing. A visual 

inspection is sufficient to ensure that 

current is flowing to each electrical 

connection. 

The proposed amendments also revise 

the requirement for pressure 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19156 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

measurement devices in 40 CFR 

63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR 

63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a ‘‘daily check of 

the pressure tap for pluggage.’’ We are 

proposing to require a daily check for 

pluggage when using a regular pressure 

tap and a monthly check when using a 

non-clogging pressure tap. Less frequent 

checks for non-clogging pressure taps 

would encourage use of newer 

technology and provide an inspection 

frequency commensurate with the 

operation of a non-clogging pressure 

tap. The proposed amendments also 

clarify the requirements for pressure 

measurement devices in 40 CFR 

63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 

63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the use of a 

manometer or equivalent device for 

calibrations. 

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

The proposed amendments clarify 

two of the recordkeeping requirements 

in 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(4). The 

requirement for the annual quantity of 

chemical binder or coating materials 

used to make molds and cores would be 

revised to require the annual quantity of 

chemical binder or coating materials 

used to coat or make molds and cores. 

We inadvertently omitted the word 

‘‘coat’’ from the original rule language. 

The requirement for records of the 

annual quantity of HAP used would 

state that records are required of the 

annual quantity of HAP used in these 

chemical binder or coating materials at 

the foundry, as calculated from the 

recorded quantities and chemical 

compositions (from Material Data Safety 

Sheet or other documentation). This 

proposed amendment clarifies that the 

HAP records requirement is specific to 

the chemicals used in the mold and 

core-making and coating operations and 

not to other HAP materials used at the 

foundry such as solvents used to clean 

or degrease equipment. 

Proposed amendments to the 

reporting requirements allow foundries 

to report the results of the semiannual 

opacity tests within the semiannual 

reports rather than having to submit 

these semiannual documents separately. 

This change would reduce the 

administrative costs associated with 

submission of separate reports. Other 

proposed amendments to the reporting 

requirements clarify the requirements 

for an immediate startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction report by adding the 

same language used in 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(ii). The proposed 

amendments require an immediate 

report if you had a startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction and the source exceeded 

any applicable emissions limitation in 

40 CFR 63.7690. 

G. Definitions 

We are proposing to add definitions of 

the terms ‘‘off blast’’ and ‘‘on blast’’ to 

40 CFR 63.7765. These definitions 

would clarify that blast conditions used 

to bring the cupola up to operating 

temperature during start-up are not 

covered by the VOHAP parameter 

operating limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(b)(3). 

The existing parameter operating limit 

requires the foundry to operate each 

combustion device applied to emissions 

from a cupola that is subject to the 

VOHAP emissions limit so that the 15- 

minute average combustion zone 

temperature does not fall below a 

certain level. The operating limit states 

that periods when the cupola is off-blast 

and for 15 minutes after going on-blast 

from an off-blast condition are not 

included in the 15-minute average 

combustion zone temperature. The term 

‘‘off blast’’ would be defined as those 

periods of cupola operation when the 

cupola is not actively being used to 

produce molten metal. Off-blast 

conditions include cupola startup 

procedures as defined in the startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan. Offblast conditions also include idling 

conditions when the blast air is turned 

off or down to the point that the cupola 

does not produce additional molten 

metal. The term ‘‘on blast’’ would mean 

those periods of cupola operation when 

combustion (blast) air is introduced to 

the cupola furnace and the furnace is 

capable of producing molten metal. On 

blast conditions are characterized by 

both blast air introduction and molten 

metal production. 

The petitioners also raised the 

concern that only a limited number of 

metal constituents were evaluated when 

assessing the total metal HAP emissions 

limits. They noted that not all 

constituents for which EPA Method 29 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) is 

applicable are HAP. They also sought 

clarification on how to calculate the 

total metal HAP if certain constituents 

were below the analytical detection 

limit. 

The evaluation of the total metal HAP 

emissions limits actually included most 

Method 29 HAP constituents, although 

it did not include phosphorus. The 

evaluation did not include detection 

limits or other non-zero values for metal 

constituents measured below detection 

limit. To address the petitioners’

concerns, we are proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘total metal HAP’’ to 

specify the analytes to be included and 

how non-detect values are to be used in 

calculating the total metal HAP 

quantity. The proposed definition is 

based on the analytes and methods used 

to derive the total metal HAP 

alternative. The definition of ‘‘total 

metal HAP’’ would be the sum of the 

concentrations of antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium as measured by EPA Method 

29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only 

the measured concentration of the listed 

analytes that are present at 

concentrations exceeding one-half of the 

quantification limit of the analytical 

method are used in the sum. If any of 

the analytes are not detected or are 

detected at concentrations less than onehalf the quantification limit of the 

analytical method, the concentration of 

those analytes is assumed to be zero for 

the purposes of calculating the total 

metal HAP for this subpart. 

We are also proposing to clarify the 

definition of ‘‘scrap preheater’’ to 

differentiate scrap dryers that are used 

solely to remove moisture from the 

scrap metal from scrap preheaters. Scrap 

preheaters are used to preheat the metal 

scrap and reduce the energy required to 

effect melting. Most scrap preheaters 

heat the scrap metal to 400 degrees 

Fahrenheit or higher while scrap dryers 

operate at lower temperatures and are 

used solely to remove moisture from the 

scrap metal as a safety consideration 

when operating an electric induction 

furnace. Because of the lower operating 

temperatures, we do not believe that 

scrap dryers are a significant potential 

source for VOHAP emissions. We are 

proposing to amend the definition of 

‘‘scrap preheater’’ to state that scrap 

dryers, which are used solely to remove 

water from metal scrap that does not 

contain any volatile impurities or other 

tramp materials, are not considered to 

be scrap preheaters for purposes of this 

subpart. 

H. Applicability 

One of the petitioners asked EPA to 

reference the CAA or NESHAP General 

Provisions definition of ‘‘major source’’

in 40 CFR 63.7681 (Am I subject to this 

subpart?). We are proposing to add a 

reference to 40 CFR 63.2 as requested by 

the commenter. This addition would 

clarify that when we refer to a ‘‘major 

source’’ of hazardous air pollutants in 

40 CFR 63.7681, we are referring to the 

definition of major source in 40 CFR 

63.2, and not, for example, to the 

definition of major source in 40 CFR 

51.166. 

I. Editorial Corrections 

We are proposing to correct a 

grammatical error in 40 CFR 63.7710(b), 

which should refer to an emissions 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19157 

source subject to a (rather than ‘‘an’’) 

PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP 

emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). A 

comma would be added to 40 CFR 

63.7734(a)(11). The words ‘‘as possible’’

were inadvertently omitted from 40 CFR 

63.7741(a)(2)(i) and would be added. 

The proposed amendments also correct 

a misspelling of the word ‘‘calendar’’ in 

40 CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may ‘‘raise novel legal or policy 

issues.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and any changes 

made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

proposed amendments add a new 

compliance alternative, allow a new 

alternative test method, and clarify 

requirements in the existing rule. One 

proposed amendment to the baghouse 

monitoring requirements clarifies our 

original intent to require inspections of 

positive pressure baghouses not 

equipped with a stack. No new burden 

is associated with this proposed 

requirement because the burden was 

included in the approved information 

collection request (ICR) for the existing 

rule. The OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulation (40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has 

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0543, EPA ICR number 2096.02. A copy 

of the OMB-approved ICR may be 

obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 

Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 

566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and 

providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of the proposed amendments on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business that meets the 

Small Business Administration size 

standards for small businesses found at 

13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 

employees for NAICS codes 331511, 

331512, and 331513); (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the proposed amendments on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

There would not be any adverse 

impacts on any source (including any 

small entity) as a result of the proposed 

amendments because the proposed 

amendments provide an overall 

economic benefit to entities subject to 

the rule. The proposed amendments do 

not create any new requirements or 

burdens that were not already included 

in the economic impact assessment for 

the existing rule. The proposed 

amendments relieve regulatory burden 

for all entities as a result of the 

operational flexibility afforded by the 

alternative compliance option, 

alternative test method, and provisions 

allowing plants to combine multiple 

reports into a single submission. We 

have therefore concluded that these 

proposed amendments will relieve 

regulatory burden for all affected small 

entities. We continue to be interested in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

action on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 

104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19158 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that the 

proposed amendments do not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. The proposed 

amendments are expected to result in an 

overall reduction in expenditures for the 

private sector and are not expected to 

impact State, local, or tribal 

governments. Thus, the proposed 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. In addition, the proposed 

amendments do not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

proposed amendments contain no 

requirements that apply to such 

governments, and impose no obligations 

upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

The proposed amendments do not 

have federalism implications. They 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. The 

proposed amendments do not impose 

any requirements on State and local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to the proposed 

amendments. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local government, EPA 

specifically solicits comments on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 2000), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ The proposed rule 

amendments do not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. They would not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

The proposed amendments impose no 

requirements on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to the proposed amendments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. These proposed amendments 

are not subject to the Executive Order 

because they are based solely on 

technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

These proposed amendments are not 

a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined 

in Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because they are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that these 

proposed amendments are not likely to 

have any adverse energy effects because 

energy requirements would remain at 

the existing level. No additional 

pollution controls or other equipment 

that would consume energy are required 

by the proposed amendments. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–

113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. The VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency does not 

use available and applicable VCS. 

The proposed amendments involve 

technical standards. These proposed 

amendments include an alternative 

methodology, the NIOSH Method 2010, 

‘‘Amines, Aliphatic’’ (incorporated by 

reference in § 63.14) for EPA Method 18 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to 

determine the triethylamine (TEA) 

concentration of gases from the TEA 

cold box mold or core making line 

provided the performance requirements 

outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 

18 are satisfied. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA 

conducted searches to identify 

voluntary consensus standards in 

addition to these EPA and alternative 

methods. No applicable voluntary 

consensus standards were identified. 

For the methods required or 

referenced by this proposed rule, a 

source may apply to EPA for permission 

to use alternative test methods or 

alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, 

performance specifications, or 

procedures under §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) 

of Subpart A of the General Provisions. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19159 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that these 

proposed amendments will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. These proposed 

amendments do not relax the control 

measures on sources regulated by the 

rule and therefore will not cause 

emissions increases from these sources. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter I, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart A—[AMENDED] 

2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(2) The following method as 

published in the National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) test method compendium, 

‘‘NIOSH Manual of Analytical 

Methods’’, NIOSH publication no. 94–

113, Fourth Edition. 

(i) NIOSH Method 2010, ‘‘Amines, 

Aliphatic,’’ Issue 2 (and subsequent 

revisions), August 15, 1994, IBR 

approved for § 63.7732(g)(1)(v) of 

Subpart EEEEE of this part. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

Subpart EEEEE—[Amended] 

3. Section 63.7681 is amended by 

revising the second sentence to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart? 

* * * Your iron and steel foundry is 

a major source of HAP for purposes of 

this subpart if it emits or has the 

potential to emit any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons or more per year or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons 

or more per year or if it is located at a 

facility that emits or has the potential to 

emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons 

or more per year or any combination of 

HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year 

as defined in § 63.2. 

4. Section 63.7690 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text; 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

c. Revising paragraph (a)(7); 

d. Revising paragraphs (a)(11)(i) and 

(ii); and 

e. Revising paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.7690 What emissions limitations must 

I meet? 

(a) You must meet the emissions 

limits or standards in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (11) of this section that apply to 

you. When alternative emissions 

limitations are provided for a given 

emissions source, you are not restricted 

in the selection of which applicable 

alternative emissions limitation is used 

to demonstrate compliance. 

* * * * * 

(2) For each cupola metal melting 

furnace at an existing iron and steel 

foundry, you must not discharge 

emissions through a conveyance to the 

atmosphere that exceed either the limit 

for PM in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section or, alternatively the limit for 

total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) 

or (iv) of this section: 

(i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM; or 

(ii) 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) 

of metal charged, or 

(iii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP; 

or 

(iv) 0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP. 

* * * * * 

(7) For each building or structure 

housing any iron and steel foundry 

emissions source at the iron and steel 

foundry, you must not discharge any 

fugitive emissions to the atmosphere 

from foundry operations that exhibit 

opacity greater than 20 percent (6- 

minute average), except for one 6- 

minute average per hour that does not 

exceed 27 percent opacity. 

* * * * * 

(11) * * * 

(i) You must not discharge emissions 

of TEA through a conveyance to the 

atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as 

determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(g); or 

(ii) You must reduce emissions of 

TEA from each TEA cold box mold or 

core making line by at least 99 percent, 

as determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(g). 

(b) * * * 

(1) You must install, operate, and 

maintain a capture and collection 

system for all emissions sources subject 

to an emissions limit for VOHAP or TEA 

in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.7700 is amended by: 

a. Revising the last sentence in 

paragraph (b); 

b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and 

(ii); 

c. Revising the last sentence in 

paragraph (c)(2); 

d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and 

e. Revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7700 What work practice standards 

must I meet? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Any post-consumer engine 

blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily 

turnings that are processed and/or 

cleaned to the extent practicable such 

that the materials do not include lead 

components, mercury switches, 

chlorinated plastics, or free organic 

liquids can be included in this 

certification. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) For scrap charged to a scrap 

preheater, electric arc metal melting 

furnace, or electric induction metal 

melting furnace, specifications for scrap 

materials to be depleted (to the extent 

practicable) of the presence of used oil 

filters, chlorinated plastic parts, organic 

liquids, and a program to ensure the 

scrap materials are drained of free 

liquids; or 

(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola 

metal melting furnace, specifications for 

scrap materials to be depleted (to the 

extent practicable) of the presence of 

chlorinated plastic, and a program to 

ensure the scrap materials are drained of 

free liquids. 

(2) * * * You must either obtain and 

maintain onsite a copy of the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19160 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

procedures used by the scrap supplier 

for either removing accessible mercury 

switches or for purchasing automobile 

bodies that have had mercury switches 

removed, as applicable, or document 

your attempts to obtain a copy of these 

procedures from the scrap suppliers 

servicing your area. 

(3) * * * 

(iii) The inspection procedures must 

include provisions for rejecting or 

returning entire or partial scrap 

shipments that do not meet 

specifications and limiting purchases 

from vendors whose shipments fail to 

meet specifications for more than three 

inspections in one calendar year. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) You must operate and maintain a 

gas-fired preheater where the flame 

directly contacts the scrap charged; or 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.7710 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(b) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.7710 What are my operation and 

maintenance requirements? 

* * * * * 

(b) You must prepare and operate at 

all times according to a written 

operation and maintenance plan for 

each capture and collection system and 

control device for an emissions source 

subject to a PM, metal HAP, TEA, or 

VOHAP emissions limit in § 63.7690(a). 

* * * 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.7731 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7731 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

(a) You must conduct subsequent 

performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with all applicable PM or 

total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA 

emissions limitations in § 63.7690 for 

your iron and steel foundry no less 

frequently than every 5 years and each 

time you elect to change an operating 

limit or to comply with a different 

alternative emissions limit, if 

applicable. * * * 

* * * * * 

8. Section 63.7732 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a); 

b. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(4), and (b)(5) and 

adding paragraph (b)(6); 

c. Revising paragraphs (c) 

introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(5) 

and adding paragraph (c)(6); 

d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text, adding two sentences to the end of 

paragraph (d)(1), and revising paragraph 

(d)(2); 

e. Revising paragraph (e)(3); 

f. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ix) and 

(f)(3); 

g. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v), (g)(2), 

and (g)(4); 

h. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii), 

(h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii); and 

i. Adding paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7732 What test methods and other 

procedures must I use to demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emissions 

limitations? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test that applies to your 

iron and steel foundry based on your 

selected compliance alternative, if 

applicable, according to the 

requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and the 

conditions specified in paragraphs (b) 

through (i) of this section. 

(b) To determine compliance with the 

applicable emissions limit for PM in 

§ 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal 

melting furnace, scrap preheater, 

pouring station, or pouring area, follow 

the test methods and procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) For electric arc and electric 

induction metal melting furnaces, 

sample only during normal production 

conditions, which may include, but are 

not limited to the following cycles: 

Charging, melting, alloying, refining, 

slagging, and tapping. 

(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only 

during normal production conditions, 

which may include, but are not limited 

to the following cycles: Charging, 

heating, and discharging. 

(6) Determine the total mass of metal 

charged to the furnace or scrap 

preheater For a cupola metal melting 

furnace at an existing iron and steel 

foundry that is subject to the PM 

emissions limit in § 63.7690(a)(ii), 

calculate the PM emissions rate in lb/ 

ton using Equation 1 of this section: 

EF C Q

M

t Eq PM PM

test = ×















 × 



 





charge

 1) 7 000 , ( .

Where: 

EFPM = Mass emissions rate of PM, lb/ton; 

CPM = Concentration of PM measured during 

performance test run, gr/dscf; 

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry 

standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm); 

Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during 

performance test run, tons; 

ttest = Duration of performance test run, 

minutes; and 

7,000 = Unit conversion factor, grains per 

pound (gr/lb). 

(c) To determine compliance with the 

applicable emissions limit for total 

metal HAP in § 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) 

for a metal melting furnace, scrap 

preheater, pouring station, or pouring 

area, follow the test methods and 

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(6) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) A minimum of three valid test 

runs are needed to comprise a 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(4) For electric arc and electric 

induction metal melting furnaces, 

sample only during normal production 

conditions, which may include, but are 

not limited to the following cycles: 

Charging, melting, alloying, refining, 

slagging, and tapping. 

(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only 

during normal production conditions, 

which may include, but are not limited 

to the following cycles: Charging, 

heating, and discharging. 

(6) Determine the total mass of metal 

charged to the furnace or scrap 

preheater during each performance test 

run and calculate the total metal HAP 

emissions rate using Equation 2 of this 

section: 

EF C Q

M

t Eq TMHAP TMHAP

test = ×

















×



 





charge

 2) 7 000 , ( .


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP17AP07.000</MATH> EP17AP07.001</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19161 

Where: 

EFTMHAP = Emissions rate of total metal HAP, 

lb/ton; 

CTMHAP = Concentration of total metal HAP 

measured during performance test run, 

gr/dscf; 

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, 

dscfm; 

Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during 

performance test run, tons; 

ttest = Duration of performance test run, 

minutes; and 

7,000 = Unit conversion factor, gr/lb. 

(d) To determine compliance with the 

opacity limit in § 63.7690(a)(7) for 

fugitive emissions from buildings or 

structures housing any iron and steel 

foundry emissions source at the iron 

and steel foundry, follow the procedures 

in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) * * * The certified observer may 

identify a limited number of openings or 

vents that appear to have the highest 

opacities and perform opacity 

observations on the identified openings 

or vents in lieu of performing 

observations for each opening or vent 

from the building or structure. 

Alternatively, a single opacity 

observation for the entire building or 

structure may be performed, if the 

fugitive release points afford such an 

observation. 

(2) During testing intervals when PM 

performance tests, if applicable, are 

being conducted, conduct the opacity 

test such the opacity observations are 

recorded during the PM performance 

tests. 

(e) * * * 

(3) For a cupola metal melting 

furnace, correct the measured 

concentration of VOHAP, TGNMO, or 

TOC for oxygen content in the gas 

stream using Equation 3 of this section: 

C C

O Eq VOHAP O VOHAP , %

. %

.% % ( . 3) 10

2

2

10 9

20 9 = −





 





Where: 

CVOHAP = Concentration of VOHAP in ppmv 

as measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A or the concentration 

of TGNMO or TOC in ppmv as hexane 

as measured by Method 25 or 25A in 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A; and 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration in gas stream, 

percent by volume (dry basis). 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ix) Calculate the site-specific VOC 

emissions limit using Equation 4 of this 

section: 

VOC

C

Eq VOHAP

limit

 avg

CCEM

= × 20 4) , ( .

Where: 

CVOHAP,avg = Average concentration of 

VOHAP for the source test in ppmv as 

measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A or the average 

concentration of TGNMO for the source 

test in ppmv as hexane as measured by 

Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A; and 

CCEM = Average concentration of total 

hydrocarbons in ppmv as hexane as 

measured using the CEMS during the 

source test. 

(3) For two or more exhaust streams 

from one or more automated conveyor 

and pallet cooling lines or automated 

shakeout lines, compute the flowweighted average concentration of 

VOHAP emissions for each combination 

of exhaust streams using Equation 5 of 

this section: 

C

C Q

Q

W Eq

i i

i

n

i

i

n = =

=

∑

∑

1

1

( . 5)

Where: 

Cw = Flow-weighted concentration of VOHAP 

or VOC, ppmv (as hexane); 

Ci = Concentration of VOHAP or VOC from 

exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, ppmv (as hexane); 

n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and 

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from 

exhaust stream ‘‘i,’’, dscfm. 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) Method 18 to determine the TEA 

concentration. Alternatively, you may 

use NIOSH Method 2010 (incorporated 

by reference-see § 63.14) to determine 

the TEA concentration provided the 

performance requirements outlined in 

section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are 

satisfied. The sampling option and time 

must be sufficiently long such that 

either the TEA concentration in the field 

sample is at least 5 times the limit of 

detection for the analytical method or 

the test results calculated using the 

laboratory’s reported analytical 

detection limit for the specific field 

samples are less than 1⁄5 of the 

applicable emissions limit. When using 

Method 18, the adsorbent tube 

approach, as described in section 8.2.4 

of Method 18, may be required to 

achieve the necessary analytical 

detection limits. The sampling time 

must be at least 1 hour in all cases. 

(2) If you use a wet acid scrubber, 

conduct the test as soon as practicable 

after adding fresh acid solution and the 

system has reached normal operating 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

(4) If you are subject to the 99 percent 

reduction standard, calculate the mass 

emissions reduction using Equation 6 of 

this section: 

% % (. reduction 6) = − ×

E E

E Eq i o

1

100

Where: 

Ei = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control 

device inlet, kilograms per hour (kg/hr); 

and 

Eo = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control 

device outlet, kg/hr. 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Calculate the flow-weighted 

average emissions limit, considering 

only the regulated streams, using 

Equation 5 of this section, except Cw is 

the flow-weighted average emissions 

limit for PM or total metal HAP in the 

exhaust stream, gr/dscf; and Ci is the 

concentration of PM or total metal HAP 

in exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, gr/dscf. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Measure the flow rate and PM or 

total metal HAP concentration of the 

combined exhaust stream both before 

and after the control device and 

calculate the mass removal efficiency of 

the control device using Equation 6 of 

this section, except Ei is the mass 

emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP 

at the control device inlet, lb/hr and Eo

is the mass emissions rate of PM or total 

metal HAP at the control device outlet, 

lb/hr. 

(iii) Meet the applicable emissions 

limit based on the calculated PM or total 

metal HAP concentration for the 

regulated emissions sources using 

Equation 7 of this section: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP17AP07.002</MATH> EP17AP07.003</MATH> EP17AP07.004</MATH> EP17AP07.005</MATH>
19162 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

C C Eq released i = ×− 



 



 1 % ( . reduction

100 7)

Where: 

Creleased = Calculated concentration of PM (or 

total metal HAP) predicted to be released 

to the atmosphere from the regulated 

emissions source, gr/dscf; and 

Ci = Concentration of PM (or total metal 

HAP) in the uncontrolled regulated 

exhaust stream, gr/dscf. 

(i) To determine compliance with an 

emissions limit for situations when 

multiple sources are controlled by a 

single control device, but only one 

source operates at a time, or other 

situations that are not expressly 

considered in paragraphs (b) through (h) 

of this section, a site-specific test plan 

should be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval according to 

the requirements in § 63.7(c)(2) and (3). 

9. Section 63.7733 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2), and 

(d)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7733 What procedures must I use to 

establish operating limits? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Compute and record the average 

pressure drop and average scrubber 

water flow rate for each valid sampling 

run in which the applicable emissions 

limit is met. 

(c) * * * 

(2) Compute and record the average 

combustion zone temperature for each 

valid sampling run in which the 

applicable emissions limit is met. 

(d) * * * 

(2) Compute and record the average 

scrubbing liquid flow rate for each valid 

sampling run in which the applicable 

emissions limit is met. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 63.7734 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii); 

c. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and 

(iv); 

d. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) and 

(a)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emissions limitations 

that apply to me? 

(a) You have demonstrated initial 

compliance with the emissions limits in 

§ 63.7690(a) by meeting the applicable 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(11) of this section. When alternative 

emissions limitations are provided for a 

given emissions source, you are not 

restricted in the selection of which 

applicable alternative emissions 

limitation is used to demonstrate 

compliance. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The average total metal HAP 

concentration in the exhaust stream, 

determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0005 gr/ 

dscf; or 

(iii) The average PM mass emissions 

rate, determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.10 lb/ton; 

or 

(iv) The average total metal HAP mass 

emissions rate, determined according to 

the performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.008 lb/ 

ton. 

* * * * * 

(7) For each building or structure 

housing any iron and steel foundry 

emissions source at the iron and steel 

foundry, the opacity of fugitive 

emissions from foundry operations 

discharged to the atmosphere, 

determined according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 percent 

(6-minute average), except for one 6- 

minute average per hour that did not 

exceed 27 percent opacity. 

* * * * * 

(11) For each TEA cold box mold or 

core making line in a new or existing 

iron and steel foundry, the average TEA 

concentration, determined according to 

the performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7732(g), did not exceed 1 ppmv or 

was reduced by 99 percent. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 63.7736 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the operation and 

maintenance requirements that apply to 

me? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) You have submitted the bag leak 

detection system monitoring 

information to the Administrator within 

the written O&M plan for approval 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.7710(b); 

* * * * * 

12. Section 63.7740 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b); 

b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) 

through (g) as (d) through (h); and 

c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7740 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(b) For each negative pressure 

baghouse or positive pressure baghouse 

equipped with a stack that is applied to 

meet any PM or total metal HAP 

emissions limitation in this subpart, you 

must at all times monitor the relative 

change in PM loadings using a bag leak 

detection system according to the 

requirements in § 63.7741(b). 

(c) For each baghouse, regardless of 

type, that is applied to meet any PM or 

total metal HAP emissions limitation in 

this subpart, you must conduct 

inspections at their specified 

frequencies according to the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (8) of this section. 

(1) Monitor the pressure drop across 

each baghouse cell each day to ensure 

pressure drop is within the normal 

operating range identified in the 

manual. 

(2) Confirm that dust is being 

removed from hoppers through weekly 

visual inspections or other means of 

ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(3) Check the compressed air supply 

for pulse-jet baghouses each day. 

(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation using an appropriate 

methodology. 

(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms 

for proper functioning through monthly 

visual inspections or equivalent means. 

(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag 

tension on reverse air and shaker-type 

baghouses to ensure that bags are not 

kinked (kneed or bent) or lying on their 

sides. You do not have to make this 

check for shaker-type baghouses using 

self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices. 

(7) Confirm the physical integrity of 

the baghouse through quarterly visual 

inspections of the baghouse interior for 

air leaks. 

(8) Inspect fans for wear, material 

buildup, and corrosion through 

quarterly visual inspections, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 63.7741 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), 

(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(iv), and 

(a)(2)(vi); 

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), 

(c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), and (c)(2)(iv); 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP17AP07.006</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19163 

d. Revising paragraph (d)(8); and 

e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.7741 What are the installation, 

operation, and maintenance requirements 

for my monitors? 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

(2) * * * 

(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or 

as close as possible to a position that 

provides a representative measurement 

of the pressure and that minimizes or 

eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Check the pressure tap for 

pluggage daily. If a ‘‘non-clogging’’

pressure tap is used, check for pluggage 

monthly. 

(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent 

device such as a magnahelic or other 

pressure indicating transmitter, check 

gauge and transducer calibration 

quarterly. 

* * * * * 

(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

* * * * * 

(b) For each negative pressure 

baghouse or positive pressure baghouse 

equipped with a stack that is applied to 

meet any PM or total metal HAP 

emissions limitation in this subpart, you 

must install, operate, and maintain a bag 

leak detection system according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (7) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Check the pressure tap for 

pluggage daily. If a ‘‘non-clogging’’

pressure tap is used, check for pluggage 

monthly. 

(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent 

device such as a magnahelic or other 

pressure indicating transmitter, check 

gauge and transducer calibration 

quarterly. 

* * * * * 

(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

(2) * * * 

(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

(d) * * * 

(8) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect 

all components, including all electrical 

and mechanical connections, for proper 

functioning. 

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.7743 is amended by: 

a. Adding a second sentence to the 

end of paragraph (a) introductory text 

and removing the colon after the first 

sentence in paragraph (a) in text and 

adding period in its place; 

b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and 

adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv); 

c. Revising paragraph (a)(7); and 

d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.7743 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emissions 

limitations that apply to me? 

(a) * * * When alternative emissions 

limitations are provided for a given 

emissions source, you must comply 

with the alternative emissions limitation 

most recently selected as your 

compliance alternative. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Maintaining the average total 

metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 

stream at or below 0.0005 gr/dscf; or 

(iii) Maintaining the average PM mass 

emissions rate at or below 0.10 lb/ton; 

or 

(iv) Maintaining the average total 

metal HAP mass emissions rate at or 

below 0.008 lb/ton. 

* * * * * 

(7) For each building or structure 

housing any iron and steel foundry 

emissions source at the iron and steel 

foundry, maintaining the opacity of any 

fugitive emissions from foundry 

operations discharged to the atmosphere 

at or below 20 percent opacity (6-minute 

average), except for one 6-minute 

average per hour that does not exceed 

27 percent opacity. 

* * * * * 

(c) For each baghouse, 

(1) Inspecting and maintaining each 

baghouse according to the requirements 

of § 63.7740(c)(1) through (8) and 

recording all information needed to 

document conformance with these 

requirements; and 

(2) If the baghouse is equipped with 

a bag leak detection system, maintaining 

records of the times the bag leak 

detection system sounded, and for each 

valid alarm, the time you initiated 

corrective action, the corrective action 

taken, and the date on which corrective 

action was completed. 

* * * * * 

15. Section 63.7750 is amended by 

adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.7750 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * For opacity performance 

tests, the notification of compliance 

status may be submitted with the 

semiannual compliance report in 

§ 63.7751(a) and (b) or the semiannual 

part 70 monitoring report in 

§ 63.7551(d). 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.7751 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7751 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

* * * * * 

(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction report. If you had a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction during the 

semiannual reporting period that was 

not consistent with your startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan and 

the source exceeds any applicable 

emissions limitation in § 63.7690, you 

must submit an immediate startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction report 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii). 

* * * * * 

17. Section 63.7752 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7752 What records must I keep? 

(a) * * * 

(4) Records of the annual quantity of 

each chemical binder or coating 

material used to coat or make molds and 

cores, the Material Data Safety Sheet or 

other documentation that provides the 

chemical composition of each 

component, and the annual quantity of 

HAP used in these chemical binder or 

coating materials at the foundry as 

calculated from the recorded quantities 

and chemical compositions (from 

Material Data Safety Sheets or other 

documentation). 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.7765 is amended by: 

a. Revising the definition for 

‘‘Deviation’’; 

b. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Offblast’’ and ‘‘On 

blast’’; and 

c. Revising the definitions ‘‘Scrap 

preheater’’ and adding ‘‘Total metal 

HAP’’ to read as follows: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
19164 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

§ 63.7765 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source or an owner or 

operator of such an affected source. A 

deviation is not always a violation. The 

determination of whether a deviation 

constitutes a violation of the standard is 

up to the discretion of the entity 

responsible for enforcement of the 

standards. 

* * * * * 

Off blast means those periods of 

cupola operation when the cupola is not 

actively being used to produce molten 

metal. Off blast conditions include 

cupola startup when air is introduced to 

the cupola to preheat the sand bed and 

other cupola startup procedures as 

defined in the startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. Off blast conditions 

also include idling conditions when the 

blast air is turned off or down to the 

point that the cupola does not produce 

additional molten metal. 

On blast means those periods of 

cupola operation when combustion 

(blast) air is introduced to the cupola 

furnace and the furnace is capable of 

producing molten metal. On blast 

conditions are characterized by both 

blast air introduction and molten metal 

production. 

* * * * * 

Scrap preheater means a vessel or 

other piece of equipment in which 

metal scrap that is to be used as melting 

furnace feed is heated to a temperature 

high enough to eliminate volatile 

impurities or other tramp materials by 

direct flame heating or similar means of 

heating. Scrap dryers, which solely 

remove moisture from metal scrap, are 

not considered to be scrap preheaters for 

purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Total metal HAP means, for the 

purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 

concentrations of antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium as measured by EPA Method 

29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Only 

the measured concentration of the listed 

analytes that are present at 

concentrations exceeding one-half the 

quantitation limit of the analytical 

method are to be used in the sum. If any 

of the analytes are not detected or are 

detected at concentrations less than onehalf the quantitation limit of the 

analytical method, the concentration of 

those analytes will be assumed to be 

zero for the purposes of calculating the 

total metal HAP for this subpart. 

* * * * * 

19. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE is 

amended by revising the entry for § 63.9 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART EEEEE OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEEE 

* * * * * 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart 

EEEEE? Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

63.9 .................... Notification requirements Yes Except: For opacity performance tests, Subpart EEEEE allows the 

notification of compliance status to be submitted with the semiannual compliance report or the semiannual part 70 monitoring 

report. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–7203 Filed 4–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS